Office of the Deputy Attorney General
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
OPR
|
Provided data to |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conducted a review of hundreds of thousands of pa... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | Legal review | The Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA after it was signed, when Epstein trie... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Investigation | OPR investigated a gap in Acosta's emails related to the Epstein investigation, questioning Acost... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Approval process for the NPA by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida f... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Office of the Deputy Attorney General providing OPR with Outlook data for three individuals, incl... | N/A | View |
| 2010-01-01 | Guideline update process | The Department of Justice began an effort to update its 2005 Guidelines for the CVRA, which invol... | N/A | View |
| 2008-06-01 | N/A | The Department's Review of federal jurisdiction issues raised by Epstein's defense. | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2007-11-01 | N/A | Communication and review process involving USAO, defense, CEOS, Department's Criminal Division, a... | N/A | View |
EFTA00010577.pdf
An email chain from June 27, 2019, involving officials from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The Chief of the SDNY Public Corruption Unit requests a copy of a 'non-public appendix' to the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) containing a list of victims entitled to compensation. The Director of OPR responds, indicating that OPR can assist and referring the matter to the lead counsel on their investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00000121.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal ruling or report, discussing the scope and binding nature of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving Epstein. It addresses the argument that the NPA might bind other judicial districts and concludes that it only binds the U.S. Attorney's office where it was signed, specifically stating it does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00023147.tif
This document details the internal review and communications surrounding the resolution of the Epstein case, particularly focusing on the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It highlights disagreements and varying interpretations among legal officials regarding Epstein's claims, the validity of the NPA, and the scope of federal involvement, including a reaction from Villafaña to the proposed 90-day jail term and Deputy Attorney General Filip's perspective on Epstein's arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00023141.tif
This document details the Department's review of the Epstein case from February to June 2008, initiated by Epstein's defense attorneys. It highlights internal discussions and notifications within the US justice system, including a February 28, 2008, notification from USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior to the Civil Rights Division regarding an ongoing child exploitation investigation involving Epstein. The notification, prepared by Villafaña and edited by Sloman, assessed the case as not being of "national interest" and anticipated charges under specific U.S. Code sections.
DOJ-OGR-00023326.tif
This document details findings from an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into email records related to the Epstein case. It covers email migration, an email gap in Acosta's inbox attributed to a technological error, and OPR's efforts to obtain email and calendar data from various Department of Justice entities, including the FBI, Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, to reconstruct communications concerning the Epstein investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00023325.tif
This document is a review of documents obtained by OPR from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO), the FBI, and other Department components related to the Epstein investigation and the CVRA litigation. It details the types of records reviewed, including emails, correspondence, and investigative materials, and notes a data gap in Acosta's email records.
DOJ-OGR-00021098.jpg
This legal document page describes the extensive, eight-month negotiation of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) starting in January 2007, contrasting it with a potential plea agreement that was also drafted. It emphasizes the deep involvement of multiple levels of the U.S. government, including the Department of Justice, the USAO for the Southern District of Florida, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the FBI, in the negotiation and approval process.
DOJ-OGR-00002540.jpg
This legal document outlines the scope and methodology of an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Prompted by a February 21, 2019, court ruling that the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) violated victims' rights, the OPR's review examined government conduct, collected extensive records, and conducted over 60 interviews. The investigation identified five subjects, including former U.S. Attorney Acosta, for their roles in the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and related decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes claims made by Maxwell regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that Maxwell's assertion of senior-level Justice Department approval for the NPA is a mischaracterization of the record, stating that any review by offices like the Deputy Attorney General's occurred only after the NPA was signed and in response to Epstein's actions, and did not constitute an approval of the agreement itself.
DOJ-OGR-00021490.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into a significant gap in the email records of an individual named Acosta, specifically from May 2007 to April 2008. The investigation, which was related to the Epstein case, involved questioning witnesses and analyzing data from multiple U.S. Attorney's Offices, the FBI, and other Justice Department divisions. OPR concluded that the email gap was most likely due to a technological error rather than an intentional act to conceal evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00021443.jpg
This legal document details the Department of Justice's (DOJ) process of interpreting and revising the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) guidelines between 2010 and 2011. The central issue was the point at which victims' rights become active, with the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) maintaining that rights only vest after formal criminal charges are filed. This position was challenged in a November 2011 letter by CVRA co-sponsor Senator Jon Kyl, who argued to Attorney General Eric Holder that the DOJ's 2011 revised guidelines conflicted with the law's plain language by not extending rights to victims before charges were filed.
DOJ-OGR-00021309.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal review of the Jeffrey Epstein case in 2008. It describes how Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and prosecutor John Roth reviewed defense appeals (initiated by Ken Starr) regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), with Filip ultimately dismissing the defense's arguments as 'ludicrous' and refusing to meet with Epstein. The text also highlights prosecutor Marie Villafaña's sarcastic and angry reaction to learning that State Attorney Barry Krischer had secretly negotiated a light 90-day jail sentence for Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021308.jpg
This legal document details communications from May 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case, where his defense team, including Starr and Whitley, petitioned the Deputy Attorney General for a review. They argued the federal prosecution was unwarranted, irregular, and politically motivated due to Epstein's "close personal association" with former President Bill Clinton. In response, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General instructed the U.S. Attorney's Office to postpone a June 2, 2008 plea deadline pending the completion of this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00021304.jpg
This document page outlines the Department of Justice hierarchy in early 2008 and details a specific period of review by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). It recounts a February 21, 2008 conversation where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan told attorney Lefkowitz that CEOS could take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering with the USAO, provided that would help the process move forward.
DOJ-OGR-00021303.jpg
This page from a DOJ OPR report details the internal Department review between February and June 2008 regarding the Epstein case. It highlights that while Epstein's defense sought a broad review of misconduct and NPA terms, the DOJ only reviewed federal jurisdiction issues. The document also records a 'stand down' order where Oosterbaan instructed a CEOS attorney to cease involvement, and details the formal notification sent by the USAO to the Civil Rights Division classifying the case as 'child prostitution' rather than a matter of 'national interest.'
DOJ-OGR-00021193.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing related to Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines key events in Jeffrey Epstein's legal case from 2008-2009, including his guilty pleas, custodial sentence, and a review of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by Acosta. The document also lists applicable legal standards and policies from sources like the United States Attorneys' Manual and State Bar Rules.
DOJ-OGR-00021182.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailing the scope and methodology of its investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office's (USAO) handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Following a court ruling on February 21, 2019, that found the USAO violated victims' rights, OPR's investigation involved reviewing extensive records, conducting over 60 interviews, and identifying former U.S. Attorney Acosta and four other individuals as subjects of the inquiry for their roles in the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00021178.jpg
This document outlines the procedural history of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), detailing his guilty plea to state charges of procuring minors for prostitution and the subsequent sentence of 18 months in jail. It highlights the nine-month delay caused by Epstein's legal team attempting to renegotiate terms with senior DOJ officials, culminating in the Deputy Attorney General's refusal to intervene on June 23, 2008. The text also describes the immediate legal fallout, specifically a July 7, 2008 emergency petition filed by a victim ('Jane Doe') alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act because victims were not consulted about the deal.
DOJ-OGR-00003310.jpg
This document page details the legal maneuvering in May 2008 regarding the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. It describes how Epstein's lawyers (Starr and Whitley) petitioned the Deputy Attorney General to review the case, arguing that federal involvement was unwarranted and politically motivated due to Epstein's 'close ties' to former President Bill Clinton. The page also notes that the USAO, under instruction from the Deputy AG's office, postponed a June 2 deadline for Epstein's plea agreement to allow for this high-level review.
DOJ-OGR-00004612.jpg
This document is a page from an OPR report regarding the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details a technological error that resulted in a gap in U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's emails from May 2007 to April 2008 during a system migration, concluding there was no intentional concealment of evidence. The report also notes that OPR gathered records from the FBI's Palm Beach Office, the Criminal Division, CEOS, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to reconstruct the timeline and communications.
DOJ-OGR-00004611.jpg
This document outlines the methodology used by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to review documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) and other federal agencies concerning the Epstein investigation. It details the types of records examined, including case files, correspondence, and electronic data from key individuals like Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña. The review uncovered a significant data gap in Acosta's emails, which was partially resolved after the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) discovered and corrected a data association error, recovering over 11,000 emails.
DOJ-OGR-00023142.jpg
This document is page 104 of a DOJ report detailing the organizational structure of the Criminal Division and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General in early 2008. It describes a specific interaction on February 21, 2008, where CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan communicated with defense attorney Lefkowitz, offering to have CEOS take a 'fresh and objective look' at the case rather than partnering directly with the USAO. This conversation occurred shortly after a CEOS Trial Attorney had met with victims.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019232.jpg
A fax transmission report and cover sheet dated May 19, 2008, sent by Kenneth W. Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to the Honorable Mark Filip at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (DOJ). The transmission consisted of 9 pages and was successfully sent. The document is marked with the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019232.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019223.jpg
This document is a fax transmission report and cover sheet dated May 27, 2008. It confirms the successful transmission of a 3-page document from Kenneth W. Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to the Honorable Mark Filip at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (DOJ). The document contains standard legal confidentiality warnings and bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019223.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019221.jpg
This document is a legal letter dated May 27, 2008, from Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, supplementing a request for an independent review of the federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. The letter argues that the prosecution is an unprecedented extension of federal law against a figure with 'close ties to former President Clinton' and complains that Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman imposed an arbitrary June 2 deadline to force compliance with a Non-Prosecution Agreement, thereby attempting to bypass the requested review. The lawyers also allege misconduct, including leaks to the New York Times and conflicts of interest involving Sloman's former law partner filing civil suits against Epstein.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity